MEDICAL TIMES, Volume 93, Number 6: Pages 588-593,
June 1965.

Leonard Tushmet
Maplewood, New Jersey

Uncircumcision

Not even the most vigorous opponent of
routine circumcision in the male have proposed the
restoration of the prepuce, once it has been removed.
Attempts at uncircumcision have been made, nevertheless,
since at least the second century before Christ, although not
on hygienic or medical grounds. Uncircumcision has appeared
as a result of social and political pressures on the Jews,
the most widespread group practicing ritual circumcision.

The Hellenistic Period

The rapid spread of Greek culture and customs following
the conquests of Alexander did not leave the Jewish nation in
Palestine untouched. The Hellenized Jews adopted not only the
Greek style of dress but also their methods of training the
young and their interest in athletic games. Public nakedness
became a commonplace throughout Judea; in Jerusalem itself
baths and gymnasia were erected within sight of the Holy
Temple, (to the horror of the followers of the law of Moses).
The Hellenizers, in their desire to destroy all evidence of
their barbarian origin (in the Greek sense of the word),
tried to destroy the evidence of the Covenant of Abraham.
Circumcision was not then standardized: the Oral tradition
was ambitious, and frequently a large fragment of the prepuce
was left behind. The Hellenizers pulled this fragment
forward, manually, stretched it, and even applied blistering
agents thereto, in order to make it cover the glans. Josephus
says:

". . . they hid the circumcision of their genitals so
that even when naked they might appear as Greeks."1

I Maccabees 1:11, on which Josephus elaborated, merely
says, "they made themselves uncircumcised." Dr. Solomon
Zeitlin, the noted Jewish historian, in a comment on another
such statement by Josephus says:

"they hid the fact of circumcision by drawing forward
the prepuce so that they resembled the Hellenes."2

The practice became widespread enough to be noted by the
author of the apocryphal Book of Jubilees, in 15:
26-27:

"God's anger will be kindled against the children of the
covenant if they make the members of their bodies appear
like those of the Gentiles, and they will be expelled and
exterminated from the earth."

One of the causes given by the later Rabbis for the
destruction of the Temple is the practice of
uncircumcision:

" 'The hallowed flesh is passed from thee'--that is,
they attempted to hide their circumcisions."3

The Roman Period

Following the successful revolt of the Jews against
Antiochus Epiphanes and the establishment of the Hasmonean
Dynasty in 141 B.C., the practice of uncircumcision
disappeared in Judea. The Romans, who soon became the
overlords of the province, were initially as unconcerned with
the Jewish religion as with that of any other subject people.
They regarded circumcision as an interesting and amusing
custom, less harmful than the self-castration of the Cybelean
priests. Not quite three centuries later, however,
circumcision was prohibited by the Emperor Hadrian, and
uncircumcision again became practiced, this time, encouraged
by the growing sect of Christians.

The stiff-necked opposition of the Jews to the
introduction of the Roman eagles and the altars to the
God-Emperors in their holy places, their Messianic ideas, the
repeated uprisings of the Zealots, all eventually culminated
in the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. and the
dispersion of the Jews. As in the Greek period, there was a
strong tendency to assimilation on the part of the exiled
Jews. They wanted to take advantage of the luxuries of Rome
and they also wanted to avoid the payment of the onerous
"Fiscus Judaicus," a tax levied against every Jewish male.
Some devices were already at hand and others could be
converted to hide the circumcised penis. Comic actors wore a
special sheath over the penis even in the bath, "to protect
the voice," it was believed; Jews began to use the same
sheath. They also invented the "Pondus Judaeus," a bronze
sheath worn so as to pull on the skin of the preputial
fragment to make it recover the glans. 4

The assimilationists were not the only group of Jews who
found circumcision burdensome. The Apostle Peter (decried
circumcision as "a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which
neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." The insistence
of some early Christians on "circumcision after the manner of
Moses" (Acts 15:1) was a stumbling block to the conversion of
the Gentiles. The persecution of the Jews who accepted Jesus
as the Messiah by their more orthodox coreligionists led
finally to the great schism, when the Christian Jews finally
turned to the Gentile world for their proselytes. In the
process, circumcision, as well as the distinction between
clean and unclean foods, and then the rest of the Law went by
the board. It is likely that some early Christians attempted
to do away with the signs of the circumcision, as witness the
Apostle Paul, in I Corinthinians 7: 18:

"Is any called being circumcised? Let him not be
uncircumcised. Is any called being uncircumcised, let him
not be circumcised."

This passage has been sometimes construed as being purely
allegorical, but the fact remains that the question of
circumcision for converts concerned a physical process, not a
spiritual one, as the history of the Early Church shows.
5

Against both the assimilationists and the schismatics a
reaction developed, especially after the loss of Jerusalem as
the Holy City and the growth of the Rabbinic academies. The
Tannaim, the Rabbis who first committed the Oral Tradition to
writing as the Mishnah, set themselves the task of rebuilding
a religious base for Judaism by making the Law "a fence
around Israel." About 140 A.D., they finally standardized the
technique of circumcision, effectively eliminating the
previously used methods of uncircumcision. In Shabbat
19: 6, we read:

"These shreds (of the foreskin) include flesh that
covers the greater part of the corona . . .: if he waxes
fat (and the corona is covered anew) . . . or if one is
circumcised without having the inner lining torn, it is as
though he had not been circumcised."

To obviate the leaving of excessive preputial tissue, the
per'iah was instituted. After the excision of the
foreskin the mohel was instructed to seize the inner lining
of the prepuce still covering the glans and with thumbnail
and index finger of each hand to tear it so the he can roll
it fully back over the glans and completely expose the
latter.

There is no evidence that any other method was used since
that standardization of the operation. The Inquisitor was in
error when he said

"It is to be noted here that the Jews operate
differently on their own children and on Christians,
children or adults. To circumcise Christians, adults or
minors, they do not cut the prepuce all around, as they do
to their own children born in Judaism, but merely make
semi-circular resection."6

Modern Times

From then until the very recent past there is no evidence
of attempts at uncircumcision amongst the Jews. The plight of
the Jews under the Hitler terrer, however, made
uncircumcision no longer a question of social conformity but
a matter of life and death. Escape from the Ghettos set up by
the Germans in Poland was difficult but possible. On the
"Aryan side," life for the Jews remained dangerous. No matter
how "good" the visage nor how well-forged the
Kennkarte, (identification documents), the male Jew
carried with him incontrovertible proof of his origin.

The blackmailers and the extortionists know as
schmaltzovniks (from the Polish word "szmalec,"
meaning "fat") used the circumcision as the criterion of
Jewishness. Bernard Goldstein, a Bundist leader who lived on
the "Aryan side," describes their activities vividly:

"These scum would approach their victims with the words,
'Hand over your fat.' They were a terrible plague upon the
Jews who lived on the Aryan side. In addition to the
Gestapo, SS men, and others who hunted them relentlessly,
the Jews lived in constant danger from these dregs of
Polish morality, who made a business of Jewish lives.
Hundreds were engaged in this hateful occupation--searching
out the unfortunates who now lived under the protection of
Gentiles . . . Jews who had nothing and were not profitable
were handed over to the Nazis. Others had to pay monthly
blackmail. When they finally had nothing left for the blood
tax, they were handed over to their fate . . . They
operated in gangs . . . They would pull their victim into a
doorway or alley and rip open his trousers, looking for the
fateful sign . . .7

Even Christians became their victims. 8 Respectable Poles, when asked to
expose themselves, tried to give the hooliganswho surrounded
them money to avoid the disgrace; such actions merely incited
their tormentors further; they tore open their trousers and
finding an intact prepuce, beat up their hapless prey in
their chagrin. Those Catholics who took Jewish children into
convents and orphan asylums also feared the
schmaltzovniks.

"They sent back Dr. E. Ringelblum's son (who had a good
visage--i.e., he didn't look Jewish) because they feared to
keep circumcised boys."9

After the mass deportations from the Ghettos to
extermination, the Gestapo continued its job of rooting out
Jews in the towns and villages where they might be
hiding.

"One day the Gestapo raided the villa. Tolla and her
husbanh were discovered: their appearance and their
documents were of no avail. The beasts examined her husband
physically, discovered he was a Jew, and immediately shot
both of them."10

Through illegal sources, Jews could sometimes obtain
documents, stating that circumcision had been performed
because of phimosis resulting from a chancre or infection
secondary to venereal disease. Obviously such documents were
valueless for children, as well as repugnant to many adults.
Furthermore, although such papers might convince the laymen,
they were regarded with great skepticism by the German
doctors. The latter prided themselves on their skin in
distingiushing between circumcisions performed in infancy
(and hence ritual) and those done in adult life. 11

Ingenious surgeons devised methods of reforming the
prepuce to answer demands for such operations.

"There was at least one doctor who, for tremendous sums,
performed plastic operations to restore the appearance of a
foreskin. The operation was extremely dangerous, but some
were desperate enough to try it."12

The famous actor, Jonas Turkow, describes what happened to
his nephew: Before placing the boy with Christians, his
sister-in-law had to arrange for an operation to wipe out the
sign of his Jewish origin.

"She had already come to an agreement with a certain Dr.
G----------, former major in the Polish Army. I knew this
individual well from the Warsaw Ghetto . . . He had now
become a go-between for the surgeons who dd these
operations and the Jews who wanted the operations. Tens of
thousands of Jews had already had these operations. Several
doctors on the Aryan side made a good living from this
...Major G--------- asked for this operation large sums of
money which he split with the surgeon . . . The fee had to
paid in advance . . . A few days after the operation, it
appeared that it had been unsuccessful . . ."13

The same sum was demanded for another operation. It was
done by another doctor,

". . . in a meadow because the doctor didn't want to
work in his house. The second operation was also
unsuccessful. Yurek became very sick after this operation .
. ."

Techniques of uncircumcision

The earliest description of uncircumcision is given by
Celsus in Book VII, Chapter 25, of De Medicina:

"The prepuce is to be raised from the underlying penis
around the circumference of the glans by means of a scapel.
This is not very painful, or once margin has been freed it
can be stripped up by hand as far back as the pubes, nor in
so doing is there any bleeding. The prepuce thus freed is
again stretched forward beyond the glans; next cold water
applications are freely used, and a plaster is applied
around to repress severe inflammation. And for the
following days the patient is to fast until nearly overcome
by hunder lest satiety excite that part. When the
inflammation has ceased the penis should be bandaged from
the pubes to the corona; over the glans the plaster is
applied with the other end of the probe. This is done in
order that the proximal part may aglutinate whilst the
distal part heals without adhering."14

This operation was not only very painful and exposed the
patient to danger because of the rules of anesthesia and
asepsis, but it failed in a large number of cases.

As scarring took place, the skin covering the glans
retracted slowly and finally the circumcision reappeared.
15

At a later period, Paulus Aeginate, in Chapter 53 of his
Surgery, say of uncircumcision:

"Two kinds of operation have been described. Sometimes
one cuts the skin circularly at the proxima edge of the
organ, and, after separating the edges, the lower part is
pulled forward to cover the glans. Other times one dissects
with a bistoury the area just proximal to the corona, then
one draws it distally, interposes a small piece of linen so
that no adhesions form, and then covers the entire area
with fine linen. Antyllus prefers this method and has
advocated it for a long time . . ."16

In modern times, the only published description of such an
operation is a single case report from the 1890's. Because of
a misunderstanding the prepuce was removed. The violent
objections of the patient led the surgeon to replace it
immediately, suturing it to the original site. Cicatricial
contraction followed, but the cosmetic effect was good.
17

A search of the literature since 1945, particularly the
Polish, has failed to find description of the techniques used
by the Polish surgeons. From information from lay sources I
have been able to learn that three methods were used,
depending on the age of the patient, the mobility of the
post-coronal skin, and the skill of the surgeon.

The first, and crudest, technique was to pull forward the
skin from behind the corona, scarify the edges roughly, and
suture the scarified edges together with non-absorbable
suture to create an artificial phimosis. Post-operative
swelling was common and infection frequent. If infection lead
to scarring, the operation was successful; if however, as
often happened, the sutures were extruded, the skin promptly
retracted from the covered glans.

The second method was a variation of that described by
Celsus. After using local anesthetic solution sufficient to
distend the loose skin behind the glans, the surgeon made a
circular incision. By blunt dissection he separated the
anterior and posterior portions from the underlying tissue.
He then pulled forward the posterior part over the head of
the glans. With absorbable suture the anterior portion was
now fixed to the adjacent raw undersurface of the posterior
(but now, upper) part. The tip of the remainder of the
posterior portion, which now covered the glans, was narrowed
by a circular suture so that retraction did not take place.
The whole penis was then wrapped in layers of gauze. If
infection did not supervene, this operation was quite
satisfactory from a cosmetic point of view. If there was
inflammation not responding to simple measures, multiple
incision were made, allowing the release of accumulated
serum, blood, or pus; the resultant scars sometimes caused
irregular retraction of the new prepuce but seldom to the
degree that it could be said that the patient had been
ritually circumcised.

The third method was very elaborate (and correspondingly
expensive, although no more effective. Two laymen, with an
understandable passion for anonymity, on whom this type of
operation was done (by the same doctor) have described the
technique to the best of their ability: The entire operation
was done under local anesthesia. The preputial area was
infiltrated. A circular incision was made and the edges of
the wound separated. Bleeding was controlled by pressure with
a "rag" (gauze sponge?) by the patient. An area over the
iliac crest was infiltrated and a long oblong band excised.
This strip of tissue was placed in a glass of solution
(type?) while the surgeon covered the wound at the iliac
crest with greased (petrolatum?) gauze. He then took the
strip of skin and sutured the long edges to the anterior and
posterior edges of the penile incision; the narrow edges of
the strip were sutured together at the inferior surface of
the penis at the frenulum. The anterior line was covered with
oil (?). The anterior line of the bulging skin graft was then
pushed back so that it became the inner surface of an
artificial prepuce. The posterior line of incision was also
covered with oil and a firm circular bandange applied. The
patient was instructed to keep the iliac crest area dry for
three days then wash it daily. The bandage over the penile
wound was not to be touched for three days, then carefully
unwound and replaced daily until all redness had disappeared
at the site of the wound. A foul discharge occurred, both
patients said, from the inside of the new prepuce, but they
were afraid to push it back and wash the area lest they undo
the operation. The wounds healed completely ("but with rough
edges") in about two weeks.

Conclusion

No better final comment can be made than that of Doctor
Joseph Tenebaum:

"Circumcision certainly proved a boon for the Nazis.
Jews could dye their hair, assume an Aryan flair and learn
to chant Catholic hymns, but they could not hide the mark
of the covenant . . . being a surgeon myself, my
professional curiousity made me interview dozens of doctors
and examine the end results of these operations. The latter
were either unsatisfactory or mutilating. One of the
physicians, who himself underwent several plastic
operations to undo the irreparable, said to me in great
bitterness: "Jews have had all kinds of international
conferences, from Zionist congresses to Esperanto
conventions, but though Jewish doctors, starting with
Professor Israel in Berlin and Zuckerkandel in Vienna, were
pioneers in the speciality of urology, not one Urological
Congress was called for the purpose of standardizing the
circumcision repair technique.' He now had an obsession to
call a congress of Jewish urologists for the purpose of
devising a proper operative procedure to safeguard the
children of Israel from the circumcision hounds of a future
Hitler."18